Walski v. Tiesenga
381 N.E.2d 279, 72 Ill. 2d 249 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish the requisite standard of care through expert testimony that demonstrates the defendant's conduct deviated from a generally accepted medical standard, not merely by showing that another physician would have acted differently or that there are conflicting opinions on the proper procedure.
Facts:
- Harriet Walski had a history of thyroid problems, including a thyroid surgery in 1949 and subsequent radioactive iodine treatment.
- In July 1971, Dr. James Walsh diagnosed that Walski's thyroid gland was enlarged and pressing on her trachea, interfering with her breathing.
- On November 30, 1971, Dr. Marvin Tiesenga, a general surgeon assisted by Dr. Walsh, performed a subtotal thyroidectomy on Walski.
- During the surgery, Dr. Tiesenga found that extensive scar tissue and adhesions from the prior surgery had displaced anatomical landmarks around the thyroid.
- Dr. Tiesenga identified the right recurrent laryngeal nerve but determined it was safer to make a wide cut to avoid the area of the left nerve rather than risk damaging it by trying to identify it through the dense scar tissue.
- Following the surgery, Walski was diagnosed with permanent paralysis of her left vocal cord.
Procedural Posture:
- Harriet Walski sued Dr. Marvin Tiesenga and Dr. James Walsh for medical malpractice in the circuit court of Cook County, a trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict.
- Walski, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Walski, as petitioner, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff establish the required standard of care in a medical malpractice case by presenting expert testimony that a different surgical procedure should have been used, when that testimony only reflects the expert's personal preference and not a universally accepted standard within the medical community?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kluczynski
No. To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must introduce evidence of the standard of care to which the defendant doctor was bound, and the testimony of an expert stating only their personal preference for a different procedure is insufficient. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Berger, only testified to what he personally felt was acceptable practice and what was taught at his specific training institutions. He did not establish that Dr. Tiesenga's procedure—skirting the nerve in a difficult surgery with extensive scar tissue—deviated from a generally accepted medical standard. The existence of different opinions or schools of thought on a surgical technique does not, by itself, prove negligence. Because medicine is not an exact science and involves the exercise of professional judgment, a jury cannot be asked to simply choose between two conflicting but potentially acceptable medical opinions without evidence that the defendant's conduct fell below the established professional standard of care.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a significant hurdle for plaintiffs in medical malpractice litigation by clarifying the requirements for establishing the standard of care. It solidifies the principle that a mere difference of opinion between medical experts is not sufficient to create a jury question on negligence. The ruling protects physicians from liability based on choosing one of several accepted medical techniques over another. Future malpractice plaintiffs must ensure their expert testimony explicitly states that the defendant's actions violated a generally accepted standard, not just that the expert would have personally chosen a different course of action.
